Archives: Cases

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Wayfair suffered from diminishing demand for its online products and compensated by increased advertisers to drive sales. The Company was about one-third of the way through the third quarter of 2018 when it announced its second-quarter results, and by that time had already dramatically increased its advertising spending for the quarter. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Wayfair, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Snap’s user growth as reported by the company to the market was false and materially misleading. In fact, the Company faced a lawsuit from a former employee that alleged he was fired “after three weeks on the job for raising questions about allegedly false growth metrics [and] seeking whistleblower protection against retaliation by [the] company.” Based on these facts, the Company’s statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO and class period. When the market learned the truth about Snap, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Perrigo disclosed on December 21, 2018, that the Company received an audit letter from Irish tax authorities which stated in part: “IP sales transactions… including the sale of Tysabri®, were not part of the trade of Elan Pharma and therefore should have been treated as chargeable gains subject to an effective 33% tax rate, rather than the 12.5% tax rate applicable to trading income.” Perrigo had disclosed that it received the audit finding letter on November 8, 2018, but did not disclose the contents of the letter to investors at that time. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Perrigo, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Natural Health Trends’ operations in China consisted of a pyramid scheme, contrary to local law. As a result, the Company’s business operations failed to maintain compliance with Chinese laws and regulations. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Natural Health Trends, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. DXC Technology changed the focus of its sales organization from specialized teams designed to meet client expectations to a generalized sales team. The Company’s strategy of reducing costs and employee headcount resulted in a shortage of salespeople who could properly represent its products and services, resulting in lost sales opportunities. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements, including revenue projections and guidance, were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about DXC Technology, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. The FDA issued citations against Immunomedics for multiple violations at its Morris Plains, NJ facility. The FDA citations included the manipulation of bioburden samples, backdating of records, and misrepresentation of integrity test procedures. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Immunomedics, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. China TechFaith made an arrangement to sell a wholly-owned subsidiary that would be considerably less lucrative for the Company than it portrayed to investors. The Company failed to inform investors of changing market conditions that would impact profitability negatively. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about China TechFaith, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. NVIDIA touted its ability to monitor the cryptocurrency market and make rapid changes to its business as necessary. The Company claimed to be “masters at managing our channel, and we understand the channel very well.” NVIDIA also claimed to the market that any drop off in demand for its GPUs amongst cryptocurrency miners would not negatively impact the Company’s business because of strong demand for GPUs from the gaming market. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about NVIDIA, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. AxoGen aggressively raised prices in an attempt to make up for falling sales, a decision that upset customers and hurt growth. The Company paid a small group of surgeons to generate sales and became dependent on this group to generate revenue. The Company’s sales organization was prone to channel stuffing and was incented to backdate sales orders to inflate Company metrics. This resulted in the Company’s key metrics being overstated. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about AxoGen, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. DBV Technologies’ application to the FDA for Viaskin Peanut failed to provide an appropriate level of information to the agency about manufacturing processes and quality control. The Company was therefore put in a position where it had to voluntarily withdraw its Biologics License Application for Viaskin Peanut. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about DBV Technologies, investors suffered damages.